Special Operations Patrol Vehicles: Afghanistan and Iraq

49 Pages·2.792 MB·English

by  Leigh Neville, Richard Chasemore

SPECIAL OPERATIONS
PATROL VEHICLES
Afghanistan and Iraq
LEIGH NEVILLE ILLUSTRATED BY RICHARD CHASEMORE
NEW VANGUARD • 179
SPECIAL OPERATIONS
PATROL VEHICLES
Afghanistan and Iraq
LEIGH NEVILLE ILLUSTRATED BY RICHARD CHASEMORE
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 4
ENDURING FREEDOM
OPERATION 9
• An Overview
• Non-Standard Tactical Vehicles
• Ground Mobility Vehicles
• Quads and Bikes
• Pink Panthers, Bushmasters, and Perenties
• The Supacats
• Dune Buggies, IFAVs, RSOVs, and Strykers
• Other Coalition SOF in Afghanistan
IRAQI FREEDOM
OPERATION 30
• An Overview
• The Pandurs, Team Tank, and the War Pigs
• The Evolution of the GMV
• Covert Operations
THE RISE OF THE MRAP 41
THE FUTURE OF SOF PATROL VEHICLES 45
GLOSSARY 47
INDEX 48
SPECIAL OPERATIONS
PATROL VEHICLES
AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ
INTRODUCTION
Special Operations Forces (SOF) have a long history of the use of specialist or
customized vehicles adapted to match the unique requirements of their
unconventional missions. In the Western Desert during World War II, the
Long Range Desert Group (LRDG) used often gaudily camouflaged, and
heavily armed, Chevrolet 30cwt trucks alongside machine-gun equipped
Willys Jeeps on special reconnaissance (SR) missions. The unit’s colleagues in
the fledgling Special Air Service (SAS) also pioneered the use of the “Gun
Jeep.” The SAS mounted daring airfield raids, destroying German aircraft on
the ground, and became a major hindrance to Rommel’s forces, whilst also
proving that raids using specialist armed vehicles were a valid SOF tactic. The
LRDG and SAS also developed the concept of what were later termed
“mother-ships” – medium to heavy transport trucks driven far behind enemy
lines to act as mobile resupply points, allowing the SOF to undertake longer
patrols without recourse to traditional resupply channels.
Later in the war, in Europe, the SAS continued with the successful
employment of armed Jeeps, adding further field modifications that included
crude ballistic glass and light armor, effectively producing a very early precursor
to today’s heavily armored High-Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle
An Australian SASR LRPV
deployed in Iraq in 2003.
Thisvehicle’s four-man crew
istypically well armed, with the
main .50 M2, forward-mounted
FN MAG 58, Javelin ATGM (just
visible in its casing to the left
ofthe rear crew member),
andcamouflage-painted
7.62x51mm SR-25 sniper rifle
strapped to the hood in front
of the driver. What appears to
be a sniper’s drag bag is seen
just ahead of the SR-25 and
may contain a second sniper
rifle, possibly a .50 AW-50 or
Barrett. (Courtesy ADF
SOCOMD)
4
(HMMWVs; “Humvees”). The US Army made extensive use of both armed
and armored Jeeps for reconnaissance duties by conventional forces and by
the Rangers in the European theater (the Rangers also utilized so-called
“Machine-Gun Jeeps” in combat patrols during the Korean War).
Postwar, SAS operations in Oman saw the revival of the concept in the
form of a number of Series One Land Rovers modified to mount twin Vickers
medium machine-guns (MMGs) and a pair of Browning .30 MMGs for
deployment on recce missions. (Note that “recce” is the abbreviation for
“reconnaissance” used in both British and American Tier One SOF
terminology, as opposed to the more common American or Australian
“recon.”) The legendary SAS “Pink Panther” – a heavily customized Land
Rover 109 that gained its nickname from the pink tone initially used as
remarkably effective camouflage paint – was first deployed in the late 1960s
during the SAS’s counterinsurgency operations in Aden. The 109 allowed
longer-range operations due to its increased payload capacity and additional
fuel tanks, and was more heavily armed through the integration of the big
Browning M2 .50 heavy machine-gun (HMG). The Pink Panthers became
asmuch an icon of the SAS as Jeeps were during the campaigns in the Western
Desert. They continued to serve with distinction until the late 1980s, when
they were replaced by new model SAS “Landies” – the Land Rover 110
Desert Patrol Vehicle (DPV). However, even with the adoption of the new
model DPV, the nickname “Pinkie” stuck. An exceedingly rare image
The US and Australian militaries were also developing similar platforms ofthe original DMV HMMWVs
in use by Delta in the 1991
for their SOF during the 1960s and 1970s. The US Army Rangers famously
GulfWar. Despite its poor
used their M151 Gun Jeeps with mounted single or twin M60 General resolution, the image shows
Purpose Machine-Guns (GPMGs), as did infantry and mechanized scout the extensively modified early
platoons in Vietnam, where the vehicles often served as convoy escorts for M998 and M1026 versions.
Ofparticular interest is the
supply columns, speeding to position and suppressing ambushes. The Ranger
apparent lack of heavy crew-
Gun Jeeps were later to deploy to Grenada during Operation Urgent Fury served weapons mounted
in1983 and subsequently to Panama during Operation Just Causein 1989. onthe two vehicles in the
The Australians followed the UK Special Forces (UKSF) example for their foreground, with M249s and
M60s apparently the extent
Special Air Service Regiment (SASR), and modified Land Rover Series 2As as
oftheir armament. The rear
the Long Range Patrol Vehicle (LRPV), before eventually adopting the now
vehicle appears to mount an
famous six-wheeled Jaguar Perentie LRPV. The SASR had the unenviable M2 .50 in some form of ring
taskof conducting long-range reconnaissance and surveillance operations in mount, but the image is not
clear enough to identify the
Australia’s barren far north and their vehicles were suitably enhanced for the
vehicle – it may well be a
grueling conditions. Such experience, and that of 22 SAS in Oman and Aden,
LandRover variant. (Courtesy
would still be extremely pertinent decades later in Iraq and Afghanistan. USSOCOM)
The next major evolution in SOF vehicle-
mounted operations occurred during the 1991
Operation Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait
after Iraqi forces invaded the tiny, oil-rich
nation. US and UK SOF deployed in the
infamous “Scud Hunt” for Iraqi Scud ballistic
missile platforms, aiming to inhibit Iraq’s
capability to launch missiles into Saudi Arabia,
Israel, and Bahrain. Both 1st Special Forces
Operational Detachment – Delta (SFOD-D
or Delta) and Operational Detachment Alpha
(ODA) teams from the 5th Special Forces
Group (Airborne) conducted long-range SR
mounted and foot patrols to uncover the Scud
5
The famed US Navy SEAL DPV
shown deployed in southern
Iraq. Both weapons visible on
this three-man version are
covered to protect against
thesand. (Courtesy US Navy,
photo by Photographer’s Mate
1st Class Arlo Abrahamson)
launchers and call in Coalition airstrikes. Some of these operations utilized
so-called Special Forces Desert Mobility Vehicles (DMVs), early variants of
which would later become known as Ground Mobility Vehicles (GMVs).
These were standard M998 and M1026 HMMWVs enhanced with
integrated specialist communications, improved suspension, and increased
cargo capacity and weapons stations (apparently some Land Rover-based
vehicles were also modified and used by Delta during the campaign). The
UKSF contribution from 22 SAS included recently acquired 110 DPVs,
supported by Unimog and ACMAT trucks acting as mother-ships, in turn
protected by a number of modified Defender 90 Land Rovers.
In addition, the Gulf War saw the operational debut of a new concept in
SOF vehicles known variously as the Light Strike Vehicle (LSV) in UKSF service
or as the Desert Patrol Vehicle (DPV) in US Navy service. Essentially an
upgraded, armed, two- or three-seat dune buggy, the LSV was operationally
trialed by 22 SAS in Iraq’s western deserts, found wanting, and quickly retired,
although the US Navy SEALs (Sea, Air and Land teams) adopted the DPV and
A LAND ROVER 110 “PINK PANTHER” DESERT PATROL VEHICLE (DPV): MOBILITY
TROOP, D SQUADRON, 22 SPECIAL AIR SERVICE REGIMENT (22 SAS), IRAQ, 2003
Potentially the most famous Special Forces vehicle of all time, the SAS Pink Panther, or “Pinkie,”
isevocative of the Regiment’s origins in North Africa in World War II with David Stirling’s fledgling
Special Air Service and its compatriots in the Long Range Desert Group (LRDG). In a number of
ever-improved variants, the Pinkie saw action in 22 SAS for nearly 40 years, to be finally replaced
by the Supacat Menacity in 2003–04.
The example illustrated shows the last model developed anddeployed by 22 SAS for the invasion
of Iraq in 2003, when B and D Squadrons operated together as Task Force 7 in western Iraq. This
Pinkie is fully “tooled up” with a .50 Browning andpassenger-side General Purpose Machine-Gun
(GPMG) and carries an impressive amount ofsupplies, indicating its probable role in long-range
reconnaissance.
Note the heavily chipped finish of this vehicle, indicating heavy use – it may well be one of the
Pinkies that took part in theearlier Operation Trentin Afghanistan – and the sand channels for
recovering the Pinkie frombogging in soft sand. The three-man 22 SAS crew are all wearing a
mixof commercial and issue equipment.
6

were famously photographed as they drove several of the vehicles into Kuwait
City at the conclusion of the ground campaign.
Between 1991 and 2001 there were relatively few instances of
SOF-specific vehicles being deployed in action. The Rangers and Delta
operators of Task Force Ranger in Somalia in 1993 used standard HMMWVs
during the infamous Battle of the Black Sea, although reports indicate
there was also at least one SEAL DPV present. Several DMV variants were
deployed, however, with US Army Special Forces ODAs in other regions of
the war-torn country.
Operations in support of the Implementation Force (IFOR) and later
Stabilization Force (SFOR) in the Balkans also saw a mix of regular
HMMWVs and DMVs deployed with Army Special Forces. Meanwhile,
onthe other side of the world, the UK’s 22 SAS and Special Boat Service (SBS)
deployed several Pink Panther DPVs (including one mounting an unusual
twin M2 .50 weapons station) immediately prior to Operation Barras, the
successful hostage rescue in volatile Sierra Leone conducted after a number
of British servicemen were taken prisoner by local militia.
After the fateful events of September 11, 2001, the ensuing Operation
Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan (OEF), and the later Operation Iraqi
Freedom (OIF), have shared extensive and on-going use of SOF, which truly
became the “tip of the spear.” OEF began with the October 2001 SOF- and
CIA-led campaign that toppled the Taliban government and inflicted heavy
losses on Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist organization, which hadtaken
up residence in the country at the invitation of the Taliban leadershipunder the
movement’s founder, Mullah Omar.
A similarly heavy reliance on SOF was later evident in Iraq during
OIF, with SOF seizing key targets and acting as the eyes and ears and as a
flanking screen in the western desert for conventional forces driving from
the south toward the capital. Additionally, SOF in the form of the 3rd and
10th Special Forces Groups led operations in the north when Turkey
withdrew over-flight permissions for US forces. Following the April 2003
invasion, SOF have continued to operate extensively in support of the
Coalition’s counterinsurgency effort throughout the country, constantly
adapting and modifying their tactics and techniques against an elusive
insurgent opposition whose key weapon has become the roadside bomb
orimprovised explosive device (IED).
SOF vehicles have also evolved to meet the mission requirements of, and
the divergent threats posed by operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The
question of armor and survivability versus speed and maneuver has become
one of the most public aspects of this evolution, typified by recent media
interest in the use of the IED-vulnerable Snatch, Snatch 2, and Weapons
Mount Installation Kit (WMIK) Land Rover platforms by UK forces in both
theaters. SOF vehicles must be suited to operating in rough or mountainous
terrain yet also pack enough punch so that they can extricate themselves if
engaged by a numerically superior enemy.
Mounting weapons capable of engaging enemy armor is less of an issue.
With the exception of the relatively short invasion phase of OIF, and the
occasional Taliban-controlled armored vehicle still operable in late 2001,
the threat of enemy armor in both theaters is nigh on zero, and Javelin and
similar manportable systems are carried to engage any enemy vehicles, such
as the ubiquitous “technical” or armed pick-up truck, which are encountered.
SOF vehicles consequently must be able either to outrun or outgun potential
8
adversaries based on the risks envisioned within the theater of operations.
They must also be able to act as mobile logistical bases, transporting enough
supplies for the SOF operators to replenish in the field without recourse
tofrequent, and potentially compromising, helicopter resupply. The necessary
trade-offs between speed, maneuverability, and protection – in terms of
armor, in-built survivability systems such as fire suppressors and blast
deflectors, and weapons systems – must also be considered, particularly in
light of the increased threats from Soviet-era “legacy” mines in Afghanistan
and IEDs of some 90 different types in both theaters.
ENDURING FREEDOM
OPERATION
An Overview
The inhospitable mountains, harsh desert plains, and fertile river valleys pose
almost unique challenges for SOF ground mobility in Afghanistan. Depending
on their role and specific operational needs, SOF may be required to operate
their vehicles in a mixture of these terrain types, with each offering its own
particular hazards for wheeled and tracked vehicles. For example, the so-called
“Green Zones” along the river tributaries and irrigation networks ideally
require smaller, lighter, more compact vehicles to negotiate the often narrow
roads and trails, and to limit the chances of becoming stuck in bogs.
Conversely these Green Zones are ideal locations for ambush by opponents
using heavy, crew-served weapons and/or IEDs because of the natural cover
and concealment. This threat of ambush may necessitate the use of more
heavily armored vehicles, such as the tracked Viking used by the UK Helmand
Battlegroup or the Strykers deployed by the US Army Stryker Brigades
andRangers. Likewise in the mountains of eastern and northern Afghanistan,
vehicles such as the Tacoma or Hilux commercial pick-up truck successfully
navigate the often treacherous trails far more easily than a wider-wheelbase
vehicle such as the HMMWV. Yet it goes without saying that these
civilian-designed trucks do not have the payload, armour, communications,
or weapons systems of a HMMWV, Supacat, or similar dedicated platform,
and compromise becomes all too necessary.
Patrol vehicles used by
theopposition. A captured
Soviet-produced UAZ-469
usedby the Taliban, with what
appears to be a BM-12 rocket
pod mounted on the rear. The
white paint over the home-
sprayed camouflage pattern
may be a reference to the
Taliban flag or simply a crude
IFF marker. (Courtesy JZW)
9
Along with these natural
environmental challenges, there
are the man-made dangers from
both legacy mines – in anti-tank
and anti-personnel variants – and
the IEDs of the Taliban insurgents
and al-Qaeda. Estimates of the
number of mines deployed by
Soviet forces in their decade-long
war with the mujahideen and
the subsequent Afghan Civil War
range from 250,000 to 400,000,
according to the Halo Trust
de-mining charity. Some of these
Soviet minefields were correctly
recorded on maps or later made
safe by Soviet combat engineers,
but many were not.
In addition, thousands of
A early SF HMMWV, mines were air-deployed from Mil Mi-8 helicopters and never marked,
resplendent in unusual although the majority of these were anti-personnel types such as the notorious
field-applied camouflage, PFM-1 “butterfly mine,” and thus pose a much greater threat to Coalition
usedby the 19th Special Forces
foot patrols and civilians than vehicles. Even after the Soviet–Afghan War
Group in Afghanistan, 2002.
Just visible inside the open and Afghan Civil War between the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
forward compartment is a Blue (DRA) government and the mujahideen, mines continued to be laid by both
Force Tracker, and a SATCOM the Taliban and the Northern Alliance in their close to ten-year struggle
antennae array has been
forcontrol of the country.
deployed in the rear storage
area. (Courtesy JZW) Mines have also helped to feed the major IED threat to Coalition vehicles
in Afghanistan. Although much of the explosive content of IEDs comes from
unexploded or looted artillery and mortar rounds, along with traditional
ammonium nitrate-based fertilizer, mines are also recovered by the Taliban
insurgents, who extract the explosives to be used in IEDs. Often several
mines will be “daisy-chained” together and detonated by command wire or
pressure plate.
During the initial years of OEF, the sophistication of IEDs in Afghanistan
was generally low in comparison to those used in the burgeoning insurgency
in Iraq, whose bombmakers were often advised by former Iraqi Army
personnel and seasoned jihadists from the killing fields of Chechnya
and Lebanon. Most devices were reasonably simple command wire, timer,
orpressure plate triggered devices with a relative scarcity of secondary devices
or tamper switches. The advantage of their simplicity was their ease of
construction, and thus they could be manufactured and deployed in large
numbers (it should be no surprise that the IED factories are prime targets
ofSOF operations; the safest way to defeat the IED is at its source).
Since around 2005, however, there has been a marked increase in the
sophistication of Taliban IEDs. Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) and
Weapons Intelligence officers report the use of tamper switches (which
effectively operate as a back-up initiator that cuts in if EOD officers disrupt
the primary detonator), and the gradual but wider application of the
infamous Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP), which offers far greater
potential penetration of armored vehicles through its use of a crude
but frighteningly effective shaped-charge penetrator. EFPs also provide
10